Vote

Although I think SACD is the superior format, the world has already been sensitised to DVD in all its various formats , and the difference in sound quality is very small indeed. I cannot see SACD surviving against such a advantage.

Neither new format provides any real incentive for the software companies to produce titles. By year's end, there will be an installed base of about 2000 SACD players, 2000 DVD-Audio players, 15,000,000 standalone DVD-Video players (plus 50,000,000 DVD-ROM drives), and 600,000,000 CD players. Producing music titles for anything besides DVD-Video or CD will be suicidal. However, it's no great loss, as DVD-Video provides 2 channels of 24/96 for music lovers, and up to 8 channels of 16/48 for surround-sound fans (not to mention video).1

I am after the best reproduction and the highest quality available, my understanding is that SACD will do this better.

DVD probably wins simply because of the huge jump in DVD movies. DVD players for home theater have pretty much cornered the digital playback market. And the fact that average you listener's system is home theater setup instead of dedicated listening rooms such as ours means that most already have the ability to play dvd audio discs already. combined with dirt cheap players already flooding the mass market all the geniuses at corporate software companies have to do is start releasing software for music and they will win by default. Then, now this is the really brilliant part, start upgrading with lots of technical gargon and parts,tact on a few thousand and audiophiles will jump on board.

SACD is an audio format, DVD is a video format in the first place.

SACD: a whole new format just for audiophiles—such a tiny fraction of the market? It can't survive, it's 20 years too late.

Unless someone does something original, like to make compatable players for SACD, DVD, and CD and put all three on the same disk, the two new boys will remain a niche product. Nobody, including me wants the problem. The name of the game has been and still is (except for us vinyl nuts, ease of use).

quality

None address the mass market. Both are terribly expensive. There's no software. They both die. Hurray.

It's going to be a slow move to the new formats, and the old one (Red Book) will probably be around for a long, long time.

DVD-Audio will win over because we already have DVD-Video format.

Oh, they'll survive, all right. SACD and DVD-A: The 8-track of the new millennium. Huzzah!

If pre-recorded music survives at all then either or both will survive if they're better than CD at the same kind of price.

I hope SACD format wins very soon, and then the format war will hopefully be over.

How about they both die and decrease the surplus population. Because....how come I can play any CD, VHS, or audio tape on any player? Please give me just "ONE" machine that will play any CD, DVD, or super CD.

I can't sy I see victory for any of them, and in the veil of the turly universal player for 12 cm optical mediums the batle is turned over to the record companies, stores, and consumers of music (not hardware). And whne it comes to consumers, I cant say I see any demand at all, save for the audio-nutts (my self included). For the ordinary consumer (the ones that thing CD is more than adequate as far as quality is concerned) the only advantages will be the possibility for longer playing times (for best-offs samplers etc) and multi channel sound (not that I believe that the ordinary consumer, barly caring for stereo, would get anything would get anything from surround). So the survival of SACD and DVD-A as high resolution formats vill rely on the few audio-nutts (may be 5% of the population) who cares about sound-quality. And bearing in mind the average sound quality from present CDs, I guess they will be dissapointed too.

Repeat of Beta vs. VHS. SACD: superior technology. DVD: already has greater market dominance for almost all content: computer, video, . . .

Like the Man himself said, as he was sending his wife to the Great Beyond: "Hasta la vista, baby!".

sacd is ok. but xrcd is magnificent. try to listen to this xrcd title jacinta here's to ben. it blow both sacd and dvd-a.

Remember 8-track, beta, laser-disk video, the cylinder, and a few others? I don't think SACD or DVD offers a big enough advantage to cause the mass market to throw away their CDs and pay more money for an "better" sound they can't hear. I still have my LPs but the CD has made things so convenient. The new formats are not any more convenient to use for an average consumer to sit up and take notice.

It's only a matter of time. A player with conventional, DVD, and SACD will emerge to save them all. That's the beauty of capitalism and free enterprise.

Unfortunately there just don't seem to be enough audiophiles out there to push SACD over the top. I would much perfer this format over DVD-A, but I fear the masses will win out again with a video format on their side. If it will play videos and DVD-Audio, that particular format will win the war !

The ability to combine DVD-Audio and -Video formats on the same disc will make DVD-Audio the winner. SACD's compatibility with CDs is more difficult, meaningless, and expensive.

Both formats will offer a free license to CD producers to produce their formats to gain market penetration. Combi players will make it multiple choice for consumers. Neither takes off until price is the same as CD. All this will happen 5 years from now. I guess that's when I'll get involved.

The mass market for Mid-Fi equipment is being driven by DVD. The sound on DVD music such as Sessions on West 54th is already superior to CD. The only problem is there aren't nearly enough titles available. On the other hand, Sony's enormous CD library would provide a tremendous incentive for both Hi-Fi and mid-Fi buyers to go to SACD.

SACD is doomed simply because audiophiles are the only people who will buy the software. DVD-Audio has a chance if, and only if, mainstream DVD manufacturers include it in mainstream consumer machines. If that happens, making DVD-A discs may prove profitable. But otherwise, no chance. CDs are already a lot better than the boomboxes or computer audio many people listen to; there just isn't enough market to support the needed titles.

Watermarks will make DVD-A a difficult choice for audiophiles. SACD will have a chance if more labels other than Sony support it, which is doubtfoul.

They can both succeed, apparently. That is, if manufacturers follow the logical path and release truly universal machines capable of playing both formats. Both formats have a lot to offer, as many respondents to last week's vote will discover, whether they like it or not. Both these formats can and will blow CD away sonically.

Universal players—there will always be someone coming up with a better mousetrap.

The flexibility to store everything with be there.